Talk:Just transition

Untitled

I have just converted the reference to the FoE and Greenpeace documents, in the Broadening use, to citations as I wanted to capture and expose their publication dates. DaveLevy (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this "Sustainable development: a labor view" the Brian Kohler reference i.e. ref no 5. DaveLevy (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Sabina%20Mahavni/Just_Transition/Bibliography?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabina Mahavni (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabina Mahavni. Peer reviewers: Salliejohnson99, Dalanlaughlin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ILO is a UN Agency

The ILO is a UN Agency -- by definition it creates standards for labor-- you wouldn't call another international agency responsible for standards, such as the IPCC an advocacy group? You are taking the sourcing policy to an extreme -- just transition is defined by the labor movement, it would be natural to use their definitions in the article, even if they are from self-published sources -- because by definition, they are the authority for the topic. Sadads (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And, if you think there are better sources: cite them, instead of purging reasonable and neutral content on the topic, Sadads (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: It isn't reasonable and neutral content, it is promotional for their agenda. And yes, they are a ADVOCACY group, just like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime advocates for drug illegality (against the science and medical professions) because they get their money/policy objectives NOT from science but from what is popular in their supporting countries, just like the ILO gets its policy objectives NOT from economists, but from the labor movement.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, what you are saying is a convoluted and balatant misinterpretation of the source and policy: Just Transition is a concept defined by the labor movement, and championed by ILO in the Climate Negotiations -- we have to include the expert organizations who are defining the concepts in the article. ILO is an international authority on this concept -- we might not use them to describe economic policy, but we would certainly use them to describe proposed standards by the labor movement. Sadads (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We are really clearly attributing opinions to the organization, not treating them as fact -- so we are using WP:DUE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to include their opinions -- this is regularly done on every polemic topic on the encyclopedia. Sadads (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads:The problems with self-sourcing are both that it is easy to give WP:UNDUE weight to their viewpoint, whereas Independent Sources might balance their views with opposing views, (like the extra costs associated with a "just transition" which the unions don't mention) and that self-sourcing leads to biased phrasing: Religious entities phrase their anti-gay marriage stance as "promoting traditional marriage", and likewise unions like to phrase low-paying jobs in poorer countries as "worker exploitation" whereas for people in extreme poverty, low paying jobs are a route out of poverty.

This is still promotional. "In 2015, the ILO published its “Guidelines for a just transition ..." How many publications are we going to list by the ILO? Every time they publish something? What makes this publication notable enough to include? That's why we need Independent Sources to verify that this publication of theirs is important enough to mention.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sadads. The ILO is not an advocacy group. It is a governmental agency, it has an extremely bureaucratic process for approving documents, it has numerous economists who publish double blind peer reviewed research. You seem obviously motivated to challenge just transition, but you should do that by adding opposing viewpoints rather than deleting sourced material. If you cannot find adequately sourced opposing viewpoints then that is your problem, not ours. Lirani

Pinging User:Shushugah, User:Zarasophos, and User:DGG for assistance to verify any existing precedent in Wikipedia for using ILO publications as authoritative sources vs. verifying them with independent sources. Hexatekin (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The ILO is probably the most authoritative source on worldwide labour issues that exists. Their publications follow standards that make them definitely not fall under WP:SPS or WP:PROMOTION. If the ILO is not an authoritative source, then neither is the IPCC or the UNHCR or any other intergovernmental authority. For a non-contentious issue such as the definition of a widely-used term, I don't see any problem with using their publications as sources. Especially in an article like this one, where they are supported by many other sources. Zarasophos (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with using the ILO (along with other IS's) for a BRIEF DEFINITION of the term. But a detailed explanation of the ILO's suggestions/recommendations on how to implement this policy, sourced ONLY to the ILO, then gets into WP:PROMOTION. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

i agree completely with the above two comments. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy organizations

@Avatar317 I believe my sourcing is valid based on WP:SELFSOURCE. You reverted my edits because it is from an advocacy organization. The advocacy organization in question is actually the originator of the term just transitions itself. That's like saying you can't quote Abraham Lincoln's writings on the Abraham Lincoln page because an independent journalist did not see him say the words or write it on paper and independently publish about it. It does not make sense. Lirani (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Where is your proof that this advocacy org originated the term? - You'll need sources to prove that. Additionally, we use Independent Sources WP:IS to characterize an organization. As an easy extreme example, if a white supremacist organization's mission was to "Maintain the clearly proven scientific superiority of the white race above all other inferior races." do you think that should be included in Wikipedia? The way they characterize themselves is their own WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPS propaganda. That's why we use Independent Sources: Please read WP:IS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Justice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Treehugger30.

— Assignment last updated by Treehugger30 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources on international and climate law recognition of Just Transition

• "Just Transition as an Evolving Concept in International Climate Law" Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 35, Issue 2, July 2023, Pages 229–249 [1]
• "Building the Concept of Just Transition in Law: Reflections on its Conceptual Framing, Structure and Content" Environmental Policy and Law, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 275-288, 2023 [2]
• "Just Transition Litigation in Latin America: An Initial Categorization of Climate Litigation Cases Amid the Energy Transition" (January 3, 2023). 2023 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper No.9/2023, [3]
• Just Transitions and the Future of Law and Regulation Palgrave Macmillan 2022 ISBN 978-3-031-06181-3 [4]

Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)